My concern, as always is, reducing the mobility and striking power of two of the most powerful and mobile units in the game, will have a stultifying effect on creative game play. My opinion is still, to leave cavalry alone and just make guerrillas available to all factions. That all being said, I really like the idea of reducing (by almost half) the cost of techs and increasing (slightly) the amount of pps that we are able to produce. I really believe that this would make for very exciting game play. I also like Kombrig"s idea that paratroopers, should be able to drop with medium wieght weapons, like MGs, bazookas, mortars and even AT guns and infantry guns. Right now, paratroopers are so vulnerable as to make them almost useless. We rarely use paratroopers, because they die so quickly and easily, they usually aren't worth the oil to fly them to their drop zone. Meanie

I would suggest that we add transport aircraft to the research tree. At level 2 you could carry MG, Bazookas and Mortars. At level 3 you could airdrop jeeps and AT guns and at level 4 armored cars. This would simulate the development of air mobile operations overtime (i.e. gliders for carrying the heavier stuff). Perhaps to start with there should be no paratroopers on the research tree until Airborne Theory (new addition) is researched. By the way, paratroopers did usually die rather quickly if the front line troops did not break through to them soon enough (remember Arnhem?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker

I also like Kombrig"s idea that paratroopers, should be able to drop with medium weight weapons, like MGs, bazookas, mortars and even AT guns and infantry guns. Right now, paratroopers are so vulnerable as to make them almost useless. We rarely use paratroopers, because they die so quickly and easily, they usually aren't worth the oil to fly them to their drop zone. Meanie

I tend to agree with jreid that cavalry offensive punch is too powerful but I don't think making it the same as infantry is the answer. I'd suggest cavalry attack values be about 1.25 to 1.50 that of regular infantry.

Re fluid game: a multi-player game vs other humans is really only fluid in the sense that you can rapidly shift where your production goes each turn. If you are able to somehow surprise your opponent about what you have in a particular location, you might achieve a break-thru but it will usually be quickly contained, though not always. With both sides equally fluid the game can still become a slow slugfest as you try to advance hex by hex. I'm in such a 2v2 game now. On one front our opponents got the jump on us and captured a couple of cities. On the other front we have captured a couple of cities. While there is some chance of a break-thru, at present ground is only gained a few hexes at a time. That said, this game is the most sustained long term fun I've ever had in my computer game days which go back a long long way. I had a blast back in 2000 with Sudden Strike but it was rather short lived and required all players be online at the same time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jreid

I'm all for a varied force and more units being useful, such as halftracks, but I still think Cavalry have too much offensive power, especially in rough terrain.

I'm also for a fluid game of movement, but I just don't see the point of Cavalry having such a large offensive punch. Forgetting about realism, it doesn't need to be there for game purposes.

I say keep the exceptional Cav movement and recon, but tone down the offensive punch.

A single Battalion held their end of the Bridge unsupported for 9 days. The main area held longer until the Allies broke through to the river. About a quarter of the Division escaped. Paras in this game die as soon as any formation attacks them as they have no supporting arms, no tech upgrades. Even with some support the collapse quickly.

A single Battalion held their end of the Bridge unsupported for 9 days. The main area held longer until the Allies broke through to the river. About a quarter of the Division escaped. Paras in this game die as soon as any formation attacks them as they have no supporting arms, no tech upgrades. Even with some support the collapse quickly.

If these paras would occasionaly actually fight back cavalry and stop tanks what a fun killer and creativeness suppressor it would be! (Couldn't hold back sarcasm, sorry.)

Based on an article I just read, Lt. Col. John Frost and his men that held the north end of the Arnhem bridge lasted only 5 days before being overrun. Frost and all of his wounded went into captivity during a two hour truce arranged to save the wounded. The entire battle lasted 9 days with a portion of the British force escaping over the river. More than anything I learned of the extreme confusion that can exist in battle on both sides (principally caused by poor communications, poor intel, and just plain bad luck).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

A single Battalion held their end of the Bridge unsupported for 9 days. The main area held longer until the Allies broke through to the river. About a quarter of the Division escaped. Paras in this game die as soon as any formation attacks them as they have no supporting arms, no tech upgrades. Even with some support the collapse quickly.

If these paras would occasionaly actually fight back cavalry and stop tanks what a fun killer and creativeness suppressor it would be! (Couldn't hold back sarcasm, sorry.)

That "alleged sarcasim" wouldn't be directied toward me would it? You and I both know, but for any one who doesn't, paras add a wild fluidity to the game. They don't recieve much use becase they are vulnerable. One other idea for getting heavy weapons to paras, be able to para drop engineers, who can build an airbase. Then you could fly in heavy weapons, if this idea is not to "overpowered" or "unrealistic". (My own bit of restrained sarcasm)

If these paras would occasionaly actually fight back cavalry and stop tanks what a fun killer and creativeness suppressor it would be! (Couldn't hold back sarcasm, sorry.)

That "alleged sarcasim" wouldn't be directied toward me would it? You and I both know, but for any one who doesn't, paras add a wild fluidity to the game. They don't recieve much use becase they are vulnerable. One other idea for getting heavy weapons to paras, be able to para drop engineers, who can build an airbase. Then you could fly in heavy weapons, if this idea is not to "overpowered" or "unrealistic". (My own bit of restrained sarcasm)

Engineers would be useless behind enemy lines. No supply. Haven't checked but Airfields might require some supply to make, the one exception I do know is the engineer built ports.

Guerrilla overpowered? I just don't belive this. Did the players have equal skills? Any screens? They need research and they are just weak infantry, so no offensive power, and they need supply anyway. I think paras are better for cutting supply lines (roads usually).

One thing amazes me - all this endeless theoretisizing without really going to try how it would work in reality. Why do you need to wait when Vic finally decides something? Just take the editor, change the cavalry values and play a multiplayer game. And see, how it turns out. The results of this kind of test play would be the best advice also to Vic.

If you don't want to play my hardcore mod, then I or somebody else can simply make a game where only the cavalry attack power is made similar to infantry.

One other idea for getting heavy weapons to paras, be able to para drop engineers, who can build an airbase. Then you could fly in heavy weapons, if this idea is not to "overpowered" or "unrealistic". (My own bit of restrained sarcasm)

It would be more fluid and fun to simply para drop all the heavy weapons (tanks and arty) where needed.

Guerrilla overpowered? I just don't belive this. Did the players have equal skills? Any screens? They need research and they are just weak infantry, so no offensive power, and they need supply anyway. I think paras are better for cutting supply lines (roads usually).

Yeah, seriously, they are. Actually, they are just as powerful as they need to be, but I think everyone should have access to them. Jreid, and All5n could proabably be considered to be experienced and very skilled players. In our 3v3 game, they are beating the hell out of me, but with two of them doing it, they should have been able to beat me down without mercy, and instead, I am still fighting strong. I have forced both of them to keep massive amounts of troops 5,10 even 15 tiles back from the front lines. This lets me fight back on an almost equal footing against two great players at the same time. It took me a while to figure them out, but since I have, they are indeed a very powerful weapon. I was discussing the possibility of having them removed completely with CarlVon and pointed out that I would be hurting much worse in our 3v3 game had I tried to fight conventional industrial warfare. In a situation like mine, surrounded on 3 sides by enemies (approximately 75-80 % of my borders) and in mounatanous jungle terrain, Guerrilla warfare was an obvious choice. The exigincies of war made it imperative that I push these things to the limit. Now that a lot of guys have seen them used properly, I expect they will become a topic of much griping, like cavalry.

I noticed in one my game guerrillas can be useful on island maps but that's all. Um, maybe because I have no experience with 2v2/3v3 games on big maps. In theory you need less or equal number of cheaper infantry to defend against guerrilla, and they are not invisible, because you see when borders are changing.

Let's compare guerillas and rifles. Both are supposed to be more or less equal in "weight", both have only light weapons. However the guerillas have these huge bags of food and ammo with them which allow them to remain in supply longer. But how then the guerillas can have the same mobility as regular infantry? In this case they should be actually less mobile.

Ok, let's not nitpick, we can after all pretend that the large supply actually simulates how the guerillas recieve supply from different source: locals giving it to them, grabbing the locals, supplies coming via air. However why then the supplies can't last longer?

Now, rifle infantry should be something which is organised by military specialists, trained to a certain degree, led by necessary number of officers.

Guerillas as a mass movement consist different people, many with no military experience. There might not be the necessary number of officers available. Guerillas were often facing supply difficulties. But by some reason in ATG the guerillas and infantry are pretty equal in combat terms.

In my opinion the guerillas may as well have endless supply, even slightly better movement than regular infantry, but their combat capabilities should be lower. A amount of regular infantry should be able to defeat a equal amount of guerillas.

Also, if the guerillas start turn on territory which was not your's at the beginning of the game, they should have readiness penalty.

If there are guerillas, why there can't be also collaborators? Maybe one should be able to produce in every conquered city a small amount (10-20 percent of the city original production capability) of infantry and MGs?

In theory you need less or equal number of cheaper infantry to defend against guerrilla, and they are not invisible, because you see when borders are changing.

The problem is not so much defense against guerillas but attacking them. It's more useful to try to cut enemy supplies with guerillas than to use them attacking enemy troops. If there is a large amount of guerillas in your rear, you can't handle the situation even with equal number of infantry. With the current guerilla capabilities you need much stronger forces.

Don't think of these guerrillas as partisans, they are more like Merrills Marauders. These men were the cream of the army, selected from thousands of volunteers, experienced combat veterans mostly, men who could do the hard jobs. They took most of their food with them and had food dropped a couple of times. Not very many lived through their missions, and none could go out again, but they did unquestionably hasten the downfall of Burma.

August 1944, the 5307th (Merrills Marauders) was disbanded with a final total of 130 combat-effective officers and men (out of the original 2,997). Of the 2,750 to enter Burma, only two were left alive who had never been hospitalized with wounds or major illness.[41] None of the horses and only 41 mules survivedV

Here is an excerpt describing the exploits of these men. " When the Marauders attacked Myitkyina they had behind them over 800 miles of marching over jungle and mountain roads and tracks. They had to carry all their equipment and supplies on their backs and on the backs of pack mules. Re-supplied by air drops the Marauders often had to make a clearing in the thick jungle to receive the supplies."

Not partisans at all. Long range, deep penetration, special forces, and everyone should have access to them. :-)

Don't think of these guerrillas as partisans, they are more like Merrills Marauders. These men were the cream of the army, selected from thousands of volunteers, experienced combat veterans mostly, men who could do the hard jobs.

But in this case the current guerillas are too cheap. Either they are partisans and cheap or "marauders" and expensive (in this case they may very well have higher morale and experience).

And by the way, ATG theoretically already has "maradeurs" - rangers. They are though extremely cheap. One can very well produce instead of infantry only rangers (because of the much better morale). In reality the rangers formed only a very small part of the overall forces.

Maybe it would a good idea to design the rangers as long range "maradeurs" and give them to everybody. They are very expensive (one ranger equals about 10 rifles) but have 80-90 morale and 80-90 experience plus they have higher combat abilities than regular rifles.

The current guerillas should simulate mass partisan movement. Really cheap, but clearly inferior also to the regular rifles.

The US army had Rangers, who went in on D-day, and they were elite troops. They also had Merrills Marauders, which were long range, deep penetration specialists. The Japanese, British, Philipines, Americans and Austrailians all engaged in this type of warfare. This game doesn't need to make a lot of changes to guerrillas, just make them available to all.

This game doesn't need to make a lot of changes to guerrillas, just make them available to all.

Sure, another gamey feature of "cream-of-the-army,-selected-from-thousands-of-volunteers,-experienced-combat-veterans-mostly,-men-who-could-do-the-hard-jobs" specialist hordes and armies which will roar in the enemy rear.

Very simple - if they are such a elite and cream, then they should be also really expensive.

quote:

Real guerrillas or partisants fight only in their own country and depend on support of local population. Is it possible to restrict their use to those circumstances by ATG engine?

It can probably done with event editor. For example in the beginning of every turn it is checked if your guerilla unit is standing on the territory which was your at the beginning of the game. If not, then readiness is dropped to 10. This results that the guerillas can't be really used deep outside your own territory.

Sure, another gamey feature of "cream-of-the-army,-selected-from-thousands-of-volunteers,-experienced-combat-veterans-mostly,-men-who-could-do-the-hard-jobs" specialist hordes and armies which will roar in the enemy rear.

Very simple - if they are such a elite and cream, then they should be also really expensive.

To get the great long range capabilities, I spent around 350 pps and they are already twice as expensive as regular infantry, how much more expensive should they be? If they are made any more expensive, Vic may as well remove them.

"The Chindits were a British India "Special Force" that served in Burma and India in 1943 and 1944 during the Burma Campaign in World War II. They were formed to put into effect Orde Wingate's newly developed guerilla warfare tactic of long range penetration. The Chindits were trained to operate deep behind Japanese lines, and their operations were marked by prolonged marches though extremely difficult terrain by underfed troops weakened by illnesses such as malaria and dysentery. A continuing controversy over the force has centered around its extremely high casualty rate and the debatable military value of its achievements."

There is a historical context for guerilla units highly trained elite units precursers to todays special forces. The jury is still out on their value but they are certainly a unit type that should be available to those players who beleive they are worth the cost.

To get the great long range capabilities, I spent around 350 pps and they are already twice as expensive as regular infantry, how much more expensive should they be? If they are made any more expensive, Vic may as well remove them.

By expensive/cheap I mean availability. It's completely unrealistic that theoretically you can produce in one turn an army which can have ratio of normal rifles and elite superheroes 2:1 (for every two rifles there can be a superhero).

In my mod I gave long range capabilities to the special forces from the first level. Next levels simply increase their combat effectiveness.

Well, after all is said and done, what are your thoughts Vic? I seek, guerrillas for all, leave cavalry alone, and cheaper techs/more pps. I know other people voiced ideas as well, some good some, well, not so good. :-) I am imost nterested in the " Lord Creator of our Game's" opinion. Meanie.

Nothing personal here, and with the greatest of respect , but I'd be disinclined to change the game just to suit one man's preferences based on his particular style of MP gaming.

As others have already pointed out there is an excellent editor that would allow all the requested changes to made to suit whatever any individual personally prefers.

The tools are there to tailor the game to your vision. Probably a better option than campaigning to change everybody elses gaming experience.

Cheers, Lancer

Point well taken. The only reason I started this thread was becaus I personally feel that guerrillas should be available to all factions. I did not include cavalry in this discussion, I feel they are fine the way they are. I only brought up the PP/expensive tech discussion after other players mentioned it. Techs are so expensive that they rarely ever get used. A reduction in the cost of techs would allow them to be used once in a while. I am not trying to get Vic to change the game for one guy, that is why we had a big long discussion, with many players putting in thier opinions, including yourself. No personal offense was intended or recieved. Vic is pretty stable when it comes to these changes and they are not made lightly. So, what do you think Vic?

If guerillas are so powerfull as you say, they need to be nerfed. Available to all factions? And what with Arabs? Do you want guerrilla strategy in every game? If they are as powerful as you say and every faction has access to them, the game should be called Guerrilla's Tactics.